Opening Address - Gender in Court

Whether, it is searching for water, in parched dried river basins, of drought prone plateau regions; or sustaining families with protracted make-shift camps in disastrous flooded areas; or fighting for survival in cyclone devastated zones, or balancing water management in fragile eco-systems, the story is the same. Women are central.

We gather here in Kyoto, at the dawn of the 21st Century to address this – and many other problems concerning water and its distribution.

The International Conference on water and the environment in Dublin in January 1992 made the 1st call for the pivotal role of women in all water resources programs. In the same year The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and the 1994 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification followed with a call for the involvement of local communities, especially women, in decisions that affected them.

The Commission on Sustainable Development held in 1998, gave content to this sentiment, by placing the role of women for utilizing and conserving water firmly on the agenda.

The Commission on Sustainable Development noted that “… because women have a particular role in utilizing and conserving water resources on a daily basis, their knowledge and experience should be considered as a component of any sustainable water management programme.”

Subsequent to that, the 2nd World Water Forum in 2000 and the International Freshwater Conference in Bonn in 2001, have committed to involving men and, especially women, in managing sustainable use of water resources, though strengthening and broadening their participation.

The recent World Summit on Sustainable Development of 2002, through principle 18, endorsed the commitment, that women’s empowerment and emancipation, and gender equality be integrated in all activities, within the Millennium Development Goals and the Plan of Implementation of the Summit.

It further stresses to promote women’s equal access to and full participation, premised on equality with men, in decision making at all levels. It further recommends, mainstreaming gender perspectives in all policies and strategies; the elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against women; the improvement of the status of health and economic welfare through equal access to water and sanitation; economic opportunity; access to land; credit facilities; education and health care services.

A quick glance at the history of my own country South Africa, will demonstrate our long and laborious journey to achieving equity in distribution and decision-making. Prior to 1994, the intensive concentration of land ownership, in the hands of a small group of white commercial farmers, was matched by their effective control of some 65% of the national water bulk.

Apartheid was about state-directed resource capture. In terms of water, it centered on institutionalizing a racially-based, hydro-political privilege. The aridity and unproductiveness of homelands, with the forced removal of black South Africans to resource-poor areas, was a fundamental feature of Apartheid.

The democratic government of South Africa, since 1994, has placed considerable emphasis on the delivery of clean water to the people. In broad terms, water policy in South Africa since 1994 has focuses on three issues – equity, sustainability, and integration.

Equity

From the beginning, the government acknowledged the complexities of defining equity.

It is not practical to divide up South African water resources, so that each person has access to the same amount of water. Therefore the governments White Paper of 1997 identifies three distinct forms of access: access to water services, access to water resources, and, access to the benefits from water resource use. The Water Services Act provides detailed conditions and procedures for equal access, including the possibility of limitation and discontinuation of services

In September 2000 President Thabo Mbeki announced the Free Basic Water Policy, in terms of which, the poor are provided with free basic supply of 6,000 liters of water per household per month – or 25 liters per capita per day. Higher services can be obtained at the cost of consumers. Our water policy is directed aimed at the poor. The provision of free basic water is primarily a means to alleviate poverty and to improve the lives of the poorest, of the poorest of the poor.

The White Paper, further, indicated the need for the introduction of realistic pricing for disadvantaged communities. Subsidization has become the main strategy for ensuring affordability, either through cross-subsidization or through government grants.

Equity also applies to participation in water delivery, what is known as “institutional equity”. Previously, decisions were made at national level and supply was top-down. The policy thus emphasized the need for participation by beneficiaries, while decision-making and control would be devolved, as far as possible, to accountable structures (DWAF, 1994:8).

Sustainability of community water supply

The water policies of the new democratic government emphasized the need to the sustainability of water supply. Within 6 years over 8 million people have received access to potable water at a cost of R3.7 billion. By September 2000 over 341,000 temporary jobs had been created, including 180,000 for women (Kasrils, 2000f).

Overarching this, 24,000 people have been employed in Water programs. Innovative management and systems have been designed and institutional capacity building programs have been established for communities and local government to manage water resources.

Integration in Community Water Supply

Lack of integration has been identified as one of the main causes of ineffective and unequal water supply. The new South African government has embraced the principles of multi-sectoral development. Sectoral Integration in water supply refers to the inter-dependence of water issues, with those in other social, economic and environmental sectors.

Local economic development is one of the reasons for improving rural water supply, and the time saved in water collection makes women more economically productive, such as agricultural production.

On the other hand, sectoral claims on water are often in conflict e.g. between agriculture, industry or household users, and such conflicts could be of an international nature (DWAF, 1997: 27). However Sectoral integration thus contributes to equity.

Establishing sectoral integration involves institutional integration. With this, the White Paper, as well as the Water Services Act, details the roles and responsibilities of various governmental stakeholders, the private sector, the water boards, NGOs and the community, within the context of integrated water resources management.

In conclusion The Water Services Act of 1997 and the National Water Act of 1988 have enshrined water resources management into law. The legislation provides a clear mandate, to use water to redress the inequities of the apartheid system, and, ensures that those historically disadvantaged, have access to water.

The South African policy is, just one example, of the progress made in the last decade. In assessing other, national water sector policies, there are many that indicate a recognizable shift of policies to enhance equity, sustainability and integrated water resources management principles.

At the institutional level, numerous local, national, regional and international women’s groups, NGOs and networks, have been actively supporting and implementing these principles in their programmes. At the community level, several good initiatives are emerging to yield the effectiveness of integrating these principles on livelihoods and poverty alleviation.

Despite progress, and progress has been made, we have a continued sense, that, there has not been effective translation of theoretical principles of equity, sustainability and integration, into tangible action, and measurable changes on the ground.

Equity principles have, yet, to penetrate deeply into the institutional and legislative chains. The lack of a greater depth and breath of gender equity analysis and mainstreaming education and training, remains a challenge. The collection of desegregated data and the development and monitoring of gender equity and poverty-sensitive indicators, are still inadequate.

Patriarchal values, attitudes and customs continue to exist in many societies and socio-economic groups. All this result in discrimination against the poor , against poor women and girls, against poor women and girls in the south. What does this mean? It means violence; the denial of choice and freedom of movement; their exclusion from economic endeavors, political engagement, and the public sphere in general, and decision making; and denial of their full potential and capabilities as human beings.

How do we move forward? How can we identify and seize opportunities, both to strengthen and consolidate current work, while continuing to propel and expand the gender equity agenda? How do we become more strategic, more effective, more powerful in linking the important issues of equity, sustainability and integration with development? How do we truly implement and mainstream these issues into out daily work? And ultimately, how do we subscribe to the motto “Some for all rather than all for some”?

Ladies and Gentlemen, today’s session will afford us this opportunity – an opportunity for real dialogue with all stakeholders. It will allow us to listen to what poor women and men can teach us about the complexity of their water needs. We will also learn about the endeavors of institutions and organizations, which have attempted to translate concepts into practice, and heed their call for support, to build their own capacities to improve.

The task of the panel members including myself is to encourage dialogue, discussion and debate in a spirit of conciliation. We will assist to draw out recommendations from the cases presented, and, to formulate negotiated, realistic targets for achievement, beyond Kyoto.

As we end the day, we hope to achieve a firm resolve for continued, concrete action; to prove how gender and equity can be advocated coherently, so that political leaders can encourage professionals and their networks, to introduce and replicate gender equity practices in water resources management.

The commitment, for the required action by all stakeholders here, must be underlined. Time is running out. We can no longer promise words in policy documents, or existing guidelines, or speeches. We need to strive towards real impact on the ground. We need to give meaning to the lives of the poor, women in particular. We need to move from vision to action, the focus of this, the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto.

The challenge is best reiterated in the words of Franklin Roosevelt, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” Unquote.